PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
May 22, 20260 citationsOpen Access

Land North of the A46, Sherbourne Hill, Warwickshire: An Archaeological Evaluation

View Full Paper
RWRobin Weaver

Key Points

  • The aim was to evaluate the archaeological potential of the development area north of the A46 by investigating subsurface features and artifacts.
  • Excavated 110 trenches measuring 50m by 1.80m using a random grid and targeted approach to achieve a 4% sample of the area.
  • Conducted geophysical survey prior to trenching to identify potential archaeological features.
  • Executed thorough excavation to assess and date artifacts from various trenches.
  • Sparse artifact assemblage with most Roman pottery not suitable for close dating.
  • Undated post-medieval subsoil found in all areas, indicating a real absence of significant archaeological activity.
  • Area B supported geophysical findings revealing possible landscape boundaries from the Roman period, along with earlier prehistoric to Iron Age pottery fragments.

Abstract

110 trenches measuring 50m in length by 1.80m in width across the proposed development areas. The trenches were placed using a combination of random grid array and targeted trenches designed to achieve a 4% sample of the development area and to ground truth the results of a geophysical survey The artefact assemblage from the archaeological trial trenching was quite sparse overall and most Roman pottery fabrics were not suitable for close dating. Post-medieval agricultural practices and other modern activity probably accounts for some of the archaeologically "blank" trenches. However, presumed (undated) post-medieval subsoil overlays the archaeological horizon in all the evaluated areas, and it is concluded that in most areas the absence of activity is real. The potential archaeological features suggested by geophysics for Areas A and D were either not present or proved to be modern when excavated, and there was some spatial distortion in those features that were located from the survey. In Area B the evaluation works largely supported the conclusions of the geophysical survey. Here, an arrangement of linears ("L"-shape in plan and roughly north-south and east - west), suggested some form of landscape boundary. This was present in multiple trenches and, where finds were present were assessed to be broadly Roman. Flanking the above boundary on the western side was an unanticipated earlier ditch of similar proportions on the same roughly north-south alignment, which held early Roman or potentially later prehistoric to Iron Age pot fragments. In Area A only small undated and modern features were seen. A small number of minor Roman and undated presumed Roman ditches were seen in Areas B, C and D without apparent continuations into other trenches, with a single presumed Roman ditch of various proportions in the northwest corner of Area D. flowing broadly northeast to southwest, this undated ditch was thought to have been of antiquity due to its profile, although it should be noted that like everything in this area it remained undated despite thorough excavation. Archaeological features from later periods included medieval furrows, some of which contained post-medieval dated silting, and two former post-medieval field boundaries and a pond, which can be seen in the First Edition Ordnance Survey of 1886. One of the ditches was parallel to the existing farm track between Areas B and C and was spot dated to the 18th/19th century. This probably relates to the reorganization of the post-medieval landscape in the era of 'Inclosure', as does the (undated) agricultural subsoil.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Robin Weaver (2024) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a0ff327d674f7c03778ba6chttps://doi.org/10.5284/1142043
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper